A defense lawyer accused of bribing a witness is taking to the state Supreme Court her effort to have the judge presiding over her trial step aside.
Lawyers for Donna Uhlmann and her co-defendant Jamaal Dublin are asking the high court to reverse Superior Court Judge Robert D. Krause’s refusal to step down from hearing their trial. They question Krause’s impartiality, arguing that allowing the trial to proceed could undermine the public’s faith in the state judiciary.
They ask that the trial, which began on Monday, be put on hold until the court can rule on their request.
Lawyers for the state ask the court to let the trial proceed before Krause. Uhlmann and Dublin can raise the issues on appeal at the conclusion of the case, they say. The public, they argue, has an interest in the fair and expeditious resolution of the underlying criminal charges.
Supreme Court Justice Gilbert V. Indeglia will meet with the parties Thursday and relate the arguments to the full court, courts spokesman Craig N. Berke said. The court will have paperwork from all parties and transcripts of proceedings.
Krause has three times denied motions to recuse himself from overseeing the conspiracy and bribery trial. The latest rejection came Tuesday –– after jury selection began.
Uhlmann and Dublin cite two instances, as a jury was being seated, they say illustrate a “grave appearance of bias” and cause a “reasonable person” to question the court’s impartiality.
In the first, the court excused two African-American jurors. When Dublin’s lawyer, Christopher T. Millea, attempted to raise a legal challenge, Krause refused to allow him to place his objections on the record, the motion states.
In the second, when a prospective juror asked whether there would be multiple verdicts, Krause attempted to explain the law of conspiracy through an example of three individuals agreeing to burn a building resulting in the unintended death of another during the fire, the motion says.
“Aside from the highly prejudicial effect of introducing felony murder into a bribery and obstruction trial,” the court compounded the prejudice by failing to explain that each of defendants must be considered individually and could only be found guilty if the state proves each guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the papers read.
When Uhlmann’s lawyer, David A. Levy, attempted to object, the court overruled the objection and prevented Levy from putting it on the record, the motion says.
Krause refused to step aside Tuesday on those grounds, but granted a mistrial. Jury selection was set to resume Wednesday with an entirely new pool of prospective jurors.
Berke said that the court was under the impression that all the parties, including the lawyers, agreed the two jurors should be excused.
In their high court challenge, Uhlmann and Dublin cite comments Krause made in rejecting Gerard H. Donley’s motion for a new trial as evidence of bias. Donley, a former defense lawyer, was indicted with Dublin and Uhlmann in April 2012 on conspiracy, bribery, and obstruction of the judicial process charges for allegedly bribing a witness not to testify in a bribery case. A jury found Donley guilty of all counts.
In denying him a new trial July 2, Krause said the state had presented “overwhelming evidence” that he and Uhlmann colluded to bribe and obstruct justice.
Uhlmann raised those comments in August in a motion asking Krause to step aside. Krause rejected that motion Sept. 3, saying the burden was on the defense to show he had a bias “so extreme as to display clear inability to render fair judgment.”
Dublin asked for Krause to step down last week. Krause, again, refused.
Dublin and Uhlmann argue Krause’s decision misinterprets federal law and ignores that state courts take a broader view on recusals. “Under Rhode Island law, too, the test is not whether a judge is actually biased but whether his words or actions raise an appearance of bias so grave that a reasonable person would question his impartiality,” they say.
“Rather than force Ms. Uhlmann and Mr. Dublin to endure a trial expending time and considerable resources before a judge whose partiality the public and a reasonable person would question,” they ask that a new judge be assigned to the case.
The state argues Krause did not err, that he made a “thorough, thoughtful, and deliberate decision” based on his review of applicable case law.
The ability for Dublin and Uhlmann to raise the issue on appeal undermines any arguments they will suffer irreparable harm if the trial proceeds, they say. The state’s witnesses are ready and waiting to testify.
This article originally appeared on providencejournal
